In which I try to sort out my thoughts on the Prop 8 thing, and probably babble a lot.
So. CA Proposition 8.
Obviously, I'm beyond disappointed that it passed. I actually seem to find it inconcievable, on some level, that so many people could vote for something, =anything=, that began with the phrase "eliminate the right". I know that, clearly, they did, but every time I try to wrap my mind around it, it's like something temporarily shorts out in my brain.
However. Okay. That happened. They did. That's the 'given' in this logic. I may find it reprehensible and extremely difficult to understand, but it appears to be the case nonetheless.
So. Now what?
I've seen a lot of reaction I wish I hadn't. Yes-on-8 folks celebrating and gloating over intentionally discriminating against other human beings, obviously. But also things from people on the No-on-8 spectrum. People saying "this wasn't the time" or "gays are trying to push this marriage thing through when there are more important issues" or similar bullshit. As plenty of other people have already answered, there's never a "right time" for a marginalized group to press for equality. Public opinion doesn't just happen to change as time passes. It changes because people fight for it, in big ways and small.
One of the most disturbing reactions I've seen is people blaming the passage of 8 on African-Americans. As far as I can tell, the supposed basis of this is a CNN exit poll showing 8 with a 70%-30% pass rate among the African-Americans they surveyed, the highest of the racial groups in their breakdown. Okay. First of all, exit polls are pretty unreliable, as polls go. There is no way to know whether the areas they chose to survey were truly representative; the smaller a group is, the harder it can be to sample properly. Keep in mind that racial populations are not evenly distributed across CA; various areas have wildly different makeups. And I can't emphasise enough that the smaller the number of people who make up a sample, the higher the chance of getting an unrepresentative result.
Okay, so. That said, what if it's true? What if African-Americans really did vote in that percentage to pass 8? Well, the last census data I could get, 2006, says 6.7% of Californians identified as Black. It also says there are 36,457,549 Californians. That comes out to 2,442,656 Black Californians. So, 2.44 million, we'll say. It looks like they're represented about on par with population in the registered voter group, and 17.3 million of the 36.5 million Californians are registered to vote, which is 47.4%. 47.4% of that 2.44mil is about 1.16 million. 70% of that would be about 810 thousand 'yes' votes. However. If the rate had been the same as the overall outcome, 52-48%, it would still be 602 thousand 'yes' votes, which leaves a difference of about 208 thousand 'yes' votes that the reported skew would have caused.
8 passed (as so far reported) by almost 493 thousand votes. =IF= the 70/30 number is correct, then even if African-American Californians voted at a rate exactly representative of the results (52/48), 8 would STILL have passed by about 77 thousand votes. And please note, these numbers are assuming that EVERY African-American registered to vote in CA did in fact vote, which is, of course, not the case.
Have I messed up my math or logic in there somewhere? Please let me know if I have.
I heard worry before the election that Obama's candidacy might cause a larger turn-out among African-Americans who also attended highly socially conservative churches; I think that was a valid worry, =before the election=. Now we have results; it may well be the case that this happened, but unless I've screwed up somewhere I don't see any way it could have been enough, by itself, to sway the outcome.
Given that, can we please stop acting like it's their fault? Even if the Black vote had swung it, how in the world would it be productive for people to start saying the kind of things I've been seeing, things that look like people were just LOOKING for an excuse to pull on a white hooded robe? Yes, it's upsetting to be forced to see that people who, based on their own group history, you'd expect to understand a particular injustice, don't. Attacking them for that lack of understanding is not going to change their minds or win their hearts. Especially attacking in the ugly language of the very history you thought would help them understand. Oh, and the polls saying the LGBT vote for Obama was several percentage points lower than the same vote for Kerry isn't helping, either, especially when it's nearly the only group for which that was true (others: 65+, 'other religion'); combined with the hateful comments, some people are finding it very easy to believe that it was caused by racism instead of by any number of other possible reasons. And contrary to sentiments that seem to be being expressed in some quarters, "they" do not owe "us" for Obama's election. It is not some gift from White folks (of any orientation) to Black folks. The majority of people in the country voted for him, and they voted for him because they felt he was the one among our options who was most likely to do the best job for the country. Plus, this stuff makes me sick for my friends and acquaintances among the 30% that's being ignored here, the ones I know damn well went out and voted No, the ones who said so openly and tried to influence others to do so as well.
(Quick note: I'm quite sure none of y'all are among the people doing this kind of crap, but, well, I'm not going to hunt down the people who are and spam them with all this. I just need to put it down somewhere, and this is my somewhere.)
ANYway. With that part pretty much out of my system. The other part is: what now?
Okay. As far as I can see, there's a few bits to that one: what happens to existing marriages, what is the new situation, and what can we do?
Existing marriages: this post explains at least one lawyer's view pretty clearly. The CA attorney general and governor have already both weighed in with the opinion that existing marriages are not affected, and the court most likely to make the final determination is the same one that gave the opinion that made same-sex marriages available as such. It seems likely that they'll be upheld.
New situation: There seems to be a pretty good chance 8 isn't valid due to a procedural mistake. Yes, I know that sounds too good to be true, but the situation as I understand it is that while a measure that makes a small change can simply be proposed and then voted in, anything that fundamentally alters the state constitution must be approved by the legislature before being voted on by the public. And this wasn't. As to how such a mistake could've been made -- well, my personal guess would be that the 'Yes' folks don't regard it as a major change to the underlying principles of the state constitution. I don't think the courts are as likely to agree, but in either case, it certainly needs to be argued. The ACLU has filed a suit so far, and so have Santa Clara County and the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles, as well as an individual couple. One post I've seen suggested that if 8 is upheld, it combined with the equal protection clause might mean that =no= marriages can be "valid or recognized" in CA. Is that likely? I don't know -- I'd think I'd be seeing it more often if so. But it's certainly an interesting idea, isn't it?
What we can do: First, take a deep breath. Well, that's helping me, anyway. Then take heart in the good news, what there is of it. This may not stand. And it got 52% of the vote this time, yeah -- but in 2000, Prop. 22 got 61%. That's 9% down in eight years, which is pretty impressive, even if we'd wish for more. And so far, looking at our past, rights don't get granted by voters; they go through the court system and it gets sorted out that way. No one talks about Proposition X allowing interracial marriage; it's Loving vs. Virginia in the Supreme Court that fixed that. People talk derisively about "activist judges," but one big role of the courts is to protect the minority from the majority. They're =supposed= to make the rulings that overturn mob rule on certain subjects. So, one thing we can do is look for ways to help the court challenges. Obviously, another thing is to continue trying to convince at least 3% more CA voters that their fears about same-sex marriages are unfounded, and that trying to remove people's rights is unamerican and unsupportable. Part of that is continuing to help people realise LGBT people aren't some bizarre and alien other, but are their friends, family, neighbours. Part is trying to understand what terrifies them so much, and finding ways to soothe those fears. penknife made a really interesting and thoughtful post about that here. Oh, and of course, voting, when the chances arise.
Okay. I think I'm done with that for now. My apologies to anyone who actually slogged through it. ;)
Obviously, I'm beyond disappointed that it passed. I actually seem to find it inconcievable, on some level, that so many people could vote for something, =anything=, that began with the phrase "eliminate the right". I know that, clearly, they did, but every time I try to wrap my mind around it, it's like something temporarily shorts out in my brain.
However. Okay. That happened. They did. That's the 'given' in this logic. I may find it reprehensible and extremely difficult to understand, but it appears to be the case nonetheless.
So. Now what?
I've seen a lot of reaction I wish I hadn't. Yes-on-8 folks celebrating and gloating over intentionally discriminating against other human beings, obviously. But also things from people on the No-on-8 spectrum. People saying "this wasn't the time" or "gays are trying to push this marriage thing through when there are more important issues" or similar bullshit. As plenty of other people have already answered, there's never a "right time" for a marginalized group to press for equality. Public opinion doesn't just happen to change as time passes. It changes because people fight for it, in big ways and small.
One of the most disturbing reactions I've seen is people blaming the passage of 8 on African-Americans. As far as I can tell, the supposed basis of this is a CNN exit poll showing 8 with a 70%-30% pass rate among the African-Americans they surveyed, the highest of the racial groups in their breakdown. Okay. First of all, exit polls are pretty unreliable, as polls go. There is no way to know whether the areas they chose to survey were truly representative; the smaller a group is, the harder it can be to sample properly. Keep in mind that racial populations are not evenly distributed across CA; various areas have wildly different makeups. And I can't emphasise enough that the smaller the number of people who make up a sample, the higher the chance of getting an unrepresentative result.
Okay, so. That said, what if it's true? What if African-Americans really did vote in that percentage to pass 8? Well, the last census data I could get, 2006, says 6.7% of Californians identified as Black. It also says there are 36,457,549 Californians. That comes out to 2,442,656 Black Californians. So, 2.44 million, we'll say. It looks like they're represented about on par with population in the registered voter group, and 17.3 million of the 36.5 million Californians are registered to vote, which is 47.4%. 47.4% of that 2.44mil is about 1.16 million. 70% of that would be about 810 thousand 'yes' votes. However. If the rate had been the same as the overall outcome, 52-48%, it would still be 602 thousand 'yes' votes, which leaves a difference of about 208 thousand 'yes' votes that the reported skew would have caused.
8 passed (as so far reported) by almost 493 thousand votes. =IF= the 70/30 number is correct, then even if African-American Californians voted at a rate exactly representative of the results (52/48), 8 would STILL have passed by about 77 thousand votes. And please note, these numbers are assuming that EVERY African-American registered to vote in CA did in fact vote, which is, of course, not the case.
Have I messed up my math or logic in there somewhere? Please let me know if I have.
I heard worry before the election that Obama's candidacy might cause a larger turn-out among African-Americans who also attended highly socially conservative churches; I think that was a valid worry, =before the election=. Now we have results; it may well be the case that this happened, but unless I've screwed up somewhere I don't see any way it could have been enough, by itself, to sway the outcome.
Given that, can we please stop acting like it's their fault? Even if the Black vote had swung it, how in the world would it be productive for people to start saying the kind of things I've been seeing, things that look like people were just LOOKING for an excuse to pull on a white hooded robe? Yes, it's upsetting to be forced to see that people who, based on their own group history, you'd expect to understand a particular injustice, don't. Attacking them for that lack of understanding is not going to change their minds or win their hearts. Especially attacking in the ugly language of the very history you thought would help them understand. Oh, and the polls saying the LGBT vote for Obama was several percentage points lower than the same vote for Kerry isn't helping, either, especially when it's nearly the only group for which that was true (others: 65+, 'other religion'); combined with the hateful comments, some people are finding it very easy to believe that it was caused by racism instead of by any number of other possible reasons. And contrary to sentiments that seem to be being expressed in some quarters, "they" do not owe "us" for Obama's election. It is not some gift from White folks (of any orientation) to Black folks. The majority of people in the country voted for him, and they voted for him because they felt he was the one among our options who was most likely to do the best job for the country. Plus, this stuff makes me sick for my friends and acquaintances among the 30% that's being ignored here, the ones I know damn well went out and voted No, the ones who said so openly and tried to influence others to do so as well.
(Quick note: I'm quite sure none of y'all are among the people doing this kind of crap, but, well, I'm not going to hunt down the people who are and spam them with all this. I just need to put it down somewhere, and this is my somewhere.)
ANYway. With that part pretty much out of my system. The other part is: what now?
Okay. As far as I can see, there's a few bits to that one: what happens to existing marriages, what is the new situation, and what can we do?
Existing marriages: this post explains at least one lawyer's view pretty clearly. The CA attorney general and governor have already both weighed in with the opinion that existing marriages are not affected, and the court most likely to make the final determination is the same one that gave the opinion that made same-sex marriages available as such. It seems likely that they'll be upheld.
New situation: There seems to be a pretty good chance 8 isn't valid due to a procedural mistake. Yes, I know that sounds too good to be true, but the situation as I understand it is that while a measure that makes a small change can simply be proposed and then voted in, anything that fundamentally alters the state constitution must be approved by the legislature before being voted on by the public. And this wasn't. As to how such a mistake could've been made -- well, my personal guess would be that the 'Yes' folks don't regard it as a major change to the underlying principles of the state constitution. I don't think the courts are as likely to agree, but in either case, it certainly needs to be argued. The ACLU has filed a suit so far, and so have Santa Clara County and the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles, as well as an individual couple. One post I've seen suggested that if 8 is upheld, it combined with the equal protection clause might mean that =no= marriages can be "valid or recognized" in CA. Is that likely? I don't know -- I'd think I'd be seeing it more often if so. But it's certainly an interesting idea, isn't it?
What we can do: First, take a deep breath. Well, that's helping me, anyway. Then take heart in the good news, what there is of it. This may not stand. And it got 52% of the vote this time, yeah -- but in 2000, Prop. 22 got 61%. That's 9% down in eight years, which is pretty impressive, even if we'd wish for more. And so far, looking at our past, rights don't get granted by voters; they go through the court system and it gets sorted out that way. No one talks about Proposition X allowing interracial marriage; it's Loving vs. Virginia in the Supreme Court that fixed that. People talk derisively about "activist judges," but one big role of the courts is to protect the minority from the majority. They're =supposed= to make the rulings that overturn mob rule on certain subjects. So, one thing we can do is look for ways to help the court challenges. Obviously, another thing is to continue trying to convince at least 3% more CA voters that their fears about same-sex marriages are unfounded, and that trying to remove people's rights is unamerican and unsupportable. Part of that is continuing to help people realise LGBT people aren't some bizarre and alien other, but are their friends, family, neighbours. Part is trying to understand what terrifies them so much, and finding ways to soothe those fears. penknife made a really interesting and thoughtful post about that here. Oh, and of course, voting, when the chances arise.
Okay. I think I'm done with that for now. My apologies to anyone who actually slogged through it. ;)